As we continue our journey in distance education, I can’t say we left wave 1 behind (e.g., correspondence education), but it was joined by the second wave which ushered in the era of a systems approach to education. The way our group’s grid is laid out it is clear to visualize how the forces that drove distance education led to the prevailing theories of understanding distance education. This in turn drove institutional reactions and how they developed programs and models of education that reflected the prevailing teaching/learning theories and technologies of the era. I felt that Hall’s observations (1996, p. 10) regarding the paradigm shift in the fundamental way we think about knowledge and learning during this wave were very accurate. They are as follows (1996, p. 10):
· From teaching children and adolescents to teaching adults,
· From the admission of small to much larger numbers of students,
· From traditional types of students to new types of students,
· From oral communication to mediated communications, and
· From traditional functions of higher education to new function.
Complimenting this was Peter’s seven principles that represented the new pedagogical approaches of the era, including the following (2010, p. 66):
· Principle of egalitarianism
· Principles of equality of educational opportunity
· Principle of lifelong and ubiquitous learning
· Principles of flexible curricula
· Principle of learner-orientation
· Principle of autonomous learning
· Principle of learning through communication and interaction
I conducted a fairly in-depth analysis of both the Open University (OU) of United Kingdom and the University of South Africa (Unisa) for this class, and I can clearly identify all the elements described by Hall and Peters as described above. Clearly both of these mega-universities were aimed at educating large numbers of adults who were “nontraditional.” The method of teaching and communication was dissimilar from traditional face-to-face university teaching, using a variety of communication techniques, including correspondence, TV, radio, and eventually transitioning to internet-based education.
Peter’s seven principles are clearly reflected in these two universities. The principle of egalitarianism was a founding principle for Unisa, and both Unisa and OU embraced the idea of the related concept of humanitarianism. OU’s idea of “open” was, and is, based on accepting learners despite a lack of specific pre-requisites. This is reflected in their use of foundation courses that “level the playing field.” Whereas OU is geared toward giving learners a “second chance,” Unisa seeks learners who never really had a first chance. Looking at the websites of both OU and Unisa today we see the remaining principles clearly described: lifelong and ubiquitous learning that is self-directed, autonomous and learner-oriented. Both universities provide opportunities for communication with faculty and other learners in both face-to-face environments (e.g., regional centers) and online.
Regarding our two experts included in this module, I was really struck by Dr. Bates’ accounting of the early days of the Open University (OU) of the United Kingdom. He provided a colorful description of how Jennie Lee (Minister of Culture) DROVE the idea of open higher education through Parliament (you go girl!). As an academic myself, I was delighted by Dr. Bates’ dexplanation that there was an emphasis from the inception of OU that distance education would be of very high quality, and that faculty would have time dedicated to research. These ideals, coupled with the idea of the “open” concept set the “pedagogical and educational” world on its collective ear according to Professor Otto Peters. I personally love a rebel and the idea of admitting people who are disadvantaged holds tremendous appeal for me. The “open” concept strikes me as welcoming all comers – a sort of “let’s DO this” mentality. All interested learners, from all different places, with a resolute commitment to educational excellence and dedication to moving the field forward.
Dr. Tait was so gracious in his conversations and interactions with our class. Since the inception of this class I have been insatiably curious as to whether or not these “open” universities provided free education or assessed tuition. How could the government give away this level of excellence? Dr. Tait stated that enrollment in the Open University was initially gratis, but in recent years the university has had to shift to charging tuition. Unisa also now charges tuition to their learners. Tuition at Unisa for a baccalaureate degree ranges from 11,200-13,000 Rand per year ($932-1081 USD) (University of South Africa, 2015). Tuition and fees at the Open University are approximately 5400 pounds per year ($8442 USD) (The Open University, 2015). Consider data aggregated from 2006-2012 regarding average income in the US, UK and Africa (Phelps & Crabtree, 2013):
United States
Median annual household income: $43,585
Median annual per capita income: $15,480
United Kingdom (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $31,617
Median annual per capital income: $12,399
Zambia (Africa) (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $1,501
Median annual per capita income: $281
Liberia (Africa) (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $781
Median annual per capita income: $118
It is clear why most citizens of sub-Saharan Africa are unable to attend Unisa as the annual tuition represents three to nine times the median per capita income (Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S., 2013). Since discovering this data, I have found myself reflecting during the oddest times on how we/South Africa can increase access to Unisa, particularly potential learners who are disadvantaged by distance and economics. I don’t think a bake sale will fix this, and I know it would be a huge strain on the government, but I do believe education is the path to salvation. I almost feel that Unisa’s requirement that all learners have at least one hour of internet contact may further imperil student access to higher education. The tuition requirement in a country where 1/3 of the citizens of sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1/day US renders higher education beyond their grasp. In my mind this is compromising Unisa’s founding principle of egalitarianism.
How has an in-depth analysis of wave 2 altered my understanding of distance education? I continue to be struck by the concept of “open” as proposed by OU. I love the idea of throwing the doors open and saying “C’mon everybody – let’s DO this!” On the other hand, reading about the development and impact of Unisa has tugged at my heart strings and reaffirms my belief that anything really is possible. Where there’s a will there’s a way, even if it means walking an hour or more to an internet café or a regional learning center. I become enraged when we lower power at home and I can’t get on the internet for an hour or two; I can’t imagine learning without the internet, or only having access during limited hours, or having to travel a great distance to gain this access. I am deeply inspired and moved to think of the dedication of learners in a developing country such as Africa. It makes my initial definition of distance education as “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” to seem so child-like and almost flippant. It is SO much more than that; often a life-altering experience for many. When Professor Peters stated distance education served a humanitarian role I was mystified, thinking only of my own situation. Yes, distance education is really convenient for me, but to many learners the ability to gain education fulfills a basic human right.
Regarding my progress in this course with regarding to the course objectives, I feel that I am making good headway. I am an impatient person and I want to jump in and DO distance education, but I can see how this in-depth analysis of the history of distance education has heightened my appreciation of all that has transpired before me. I am enjoying developing concrete skills while deepening my understanding of the evolution of distance education. I must admit that working in a group is not my favorite thing to do, but it’s a necessary skill.
I look forward to completing my review of the history of distance education and continuing to acquire new skills!
Hall, J. W. (Ed.) (1996). Report of the task force of the International Council for Open and Distance Education. (“The ICDE Paradigm Shift Report“). Standing Committee of Presidents. Lillehammer, Norway.
The Open University Fees and funding. (2015, January 1). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding.
Peters, O. (2010). The greatest achievement of industrialized education: Open universities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 57-81). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S. (2013, December 16). Worldwide, Median Household Income About $10,000. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx
Unisa Student fees and funding your studies. (2015, February 23). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.Unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=24095.
· From teaching children and adolescents to teaching adults,
· From the admission of small to much larger numbers of students,
· From traditional types of students to new types of students,
· From oral communication to mediated communications, and
· From traditional functions of higher education to new function.
Complimenting this was Peter’s seven principles that represented the new pedagogical approaches of the era, including the following (2010, p. 66):
· Principle of egalitarianism
· Principles of equality of educational opportunity
· Principle of lifelong and ubiquitous learning
· Principles of flexible curricula
· Principle of learner-orientation
· Principle of autonomous learning
· Principle of learning through communication and interaction
I conducted a fairly in-depth analysis of both the Open University (OU) of United Kingdom and the University of South Africa (Unisa) for this class, and I can clearly identify all the elements described by Hall and Peters as described above. Clearly both of these mega-universities were aimed at educating large numbers of adults who were “nontraditional.” The method of teaching and communication was dissimilar from traditional face-to-face university teaching, using a variety of communication techniques, including correspondence, TV, radio, and eventually transitioning to internet-based education.
Peter’s seven principles are clearly reflected in these two universities. The principle of egalitarianism was a founding principle for Unisa, and both Unisa and OU embraced the idea of the related concept of humanitarianism. OU’s idea of “open” was, and is, based on accepting learners despite a lack of specific pre-requisites. This is reflected in their use of foundation courses that “level the playing field.” Whereas OU is geared toward giving learners a “second chance,” Unisa seeks learners who never really had a first chance. Looking at the websites of both OU and Unisa today we see the remaining principles clearly described: lifelong and ubiquitous learning that is self-directed, autonomous and learner-oriented. Both universities provide opportunities for communication with faculty and other learners in both face-to-face environments (e.g., regional centers) and online.
Regarding our two experts included in this module, I was really struck by Dr. Bates’ accounting of the early days of the Open University (OU) of the United Kingdom. He provided a colorful description of how Jennie Lee (Minister of Culture) DROVE the idea of open higher education through Parliament (you go girl!). As an academic myself, I was delighted by Dr. Bates’ dexplanation that there was an emphasis from the inception of OU that distance education would be of very high quality, and that faculty would have time dedicated to research. These ideals, coupled with the idea of the “open” concept set the “pedagogical and educational” world on its collective ear according to Professor Otto Peters. I personally love a rebel and the idea of admitting people who are disadvantaged holds tremendous appeal for me. The “open” concept strikes me as welcoming all comers – a sort of “let’s DO this” mentality. All interested learners, from all different places, with a resolute commitment to educational excellence and dedication to moving the field forward.
Dr. Tait was so gracious in his conversations and interactions with our class. Since the inception of this class I have been insatiably curious as to whether or not these “open” universities provided free education or assessed tuition. How could the government give away this level of excellence? Dr. Tait stated that enrollment in the Open University was initially gratis, but in recent years the university has had to shift to charging tuition. Unisa also now charges tuition to their learners. Tuition at Unisa for a baccalaureate degree ranges from 11,200-13,000 Rand per year ($932-1081 USD) (University of South Africa, 2015). Tuition and fees at the Open University are approximately 5400 pounds per year ($8442 USD) (The Open University, 2015). Consider data aggregated from 2006-2012 regarding average income in the US, UK and Africa (Phelps & Crabtree, 2013):
United States
Median annual household income: $43,585
Median annual per capita income: $15,480
United Kingdom (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $31,617
Median annual per capital income: $12,399
Zambia (Africa) (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $1,501
Median annual per capita income: $281
Liberia (Africa) (in US dollars)
Median annual household income: $781
Median annual per capita income: $118
It is clear why most citizens of sub-Saharan Africa are unable to attend Unisa as the annual tuition represents three to nine times the median per capita income (Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S., 2013). Since discovering this data, I have found myself reflecting during the oddest times on how we/South Africa can increase access to Unisa, particularly potential learners who are disadvantaged by distance and economics. I don’t think a bake sale will fix this, and I know it would be a huge strain on the government, but I do believe education is the path to salvation. I almost feel that Unisa’s requirement that all learners have at least one hour of internet contact may further imperil student access to higher education. The tuition requirement in a country where 1/3 of the citizens of sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1/day US renders higher education beyond their grasp. In my mind this is compromising Unisa’s founding principle of egalitarianism.
How has an in-depth analysis of wave 2 altered my understanding of distance education? I continue to be struck by the concept of “open” as proposed by OU. I love the idea of throwing the doors open and saying “C’mon everybody – let’s DO this!” On the other hand, reading about the development and impact of Unisa has tugged at my heart strings and reaffirms my belief that anything really is possible. Where there’s a will there’s a way, even if it means walking an hour or more to an internet café or a regional learning center. I become enraged when we lower power at home and I can’t get on the internet for an hour or two; I can’t imagine learning without the internet, or only having access during limited hours, or having to travel a great distance to gain this access. I am deeply inspired and moved to think of the dedication of learners in a developing country such as Africa. It makes my initial definition of distance education as “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” to seem so child-like and almost flippant. It is SO much more than that; often a life-altering experience for many. When Professor Peters stated distance education served a humanitarian role I was mystified, thinking only of my own situation. Yes, distance education is really convenient for me, but to many learners the ability to gain education fulfills a basic human right.
Regarding my progress in this course with regarding to the course objectives, I feel that I am making good headway. I am an impatient person and I want to jump in and DO distance education, but I can see how this in-depth analysis of the history of distance education has heightened my appreciation of all that has transpired before me. I am enjoying developing concrete skills while deepening my understanding of the evolution of distance education. I must admit that working in a group is not my favorite thing to do, but it’s a necessary skill.
I look forward to completing my review of the history of distance education and continuing to acquire new skills!
Hall, J. W. (Ed.) (1996). Report of the task force of the International Council for Open and Distance Education. (“The ICDE Paradigm Shift Report“). Standing Committee of Presidents. Lillehammer, Norway.
The Open University Fees and funding. (2015, January 1). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding.
Peters, O. (2010). The greatest achievement of industrialized education: Open universities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 57-81). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S. (2013, December 16). Worldwide, Median Household Income About $10,000. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx
Unisa Student fees and funding your studies. (2015, February 23). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.Unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=24095.